United States v. Ballieu, 480 F. App'x 494

Ballieu, a federal prisoner, seeks a COA to challenge the district court’s denial of his § 2255 petition.
District court dismissed the petition, finding no constitutionally deficient representation and no other viable constitutional claims.
Ballieu raises a new argument on appeal: trial counsel was ineffective for not raising competency, insanity, or diminished capacity defenses.
Ballieu previously had a competency hearing requested by his trial attorney; he proceeded to trial, but the record does not show the hearing’s outcome.
Ballieu also asserts he is not competent to represent himself now and requests appointment of counsel for the § 2255 proceedings.
Court preliminarily notes Ballieu is pro se and liberally construed, but ultimately denies the COA and dismissal of the appeal for frivolousness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for not raising competency/insanity/diminished capacity	Ballieu claims counsel was deficient for not arguing incompetence or related defenses.	Counsel reasonably failed to pursue these defenses; record lacks evidence of incompetence.	No deficient performance; Strickland not satisfied.
Competence to represent self and request for appointed counsel	Ballieu is not competent to represent himself now and seeks counsel appointment.	No constitutional right to counsel in a § 2255 collateral attack; district court did not err by not appointing counsel.	District court did not err; no right to appointment of counsel.
Appeal in forma pauperis	Ballieu seeks to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.	Appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith; district court denial supported by authority.	Appeal denied in forma pauperis; COA denied.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA substantial showing standard for debatable constitutional claims)
United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2005) (arguments not raised below generally not considered on appeal)
United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 1994) (court will not articulate arguments for a pro se party)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (no right to counsel in habeas corpus proceedings)
United States v. Blair, 54 F.3d 639 (10th Cir. 1995) (diminished capacity not a defense to a general-intent crime)
United States v. Allen, 449 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (insanity can be a defense to general-intent crimes)
United States v. Jackson, 248 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2001) (distinguishes specific vs. general intent defenses)
DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991) (proper consideration of pro se habeas pleadings)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good-faith standard for appeals)